1988-01-26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Meeting Minutes January 26, 1988 I Mattila reviewed staff report stating if the project were not to go through, residences are permitted in 84 and noted all uses in B4 go through a special use permit. Motion by Larson, seconded by Williams, to WAIVE THE READING AND HOLD THE FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW BRIGHTON ZONING ORDINANCE BY REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF NEW BRIGHTON FROM R-IA, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, TO B-4. DOWN- TOWN BUSINESS (GENERALLY THE SOUTH CORNER OF TENTH STREET N.W. AND THIRD AVENUE N.W.). 5 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried Locke reviewed the history of the project and the staff report. Benke summarized the homes would be a higher value and that there would be additional assistance from the city than the original agreement. 5 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried I Benke stated council is in receipt of a memo dated January 26, 1988, from Bradley Gunn, attorney for A. Thomas Oswalt attorney, and suggested we focus on the appeal and the client's arguments as to why the decision should be granted. LeFevere summarized the history of the claim, then suggested Oswalt or Gunn be given the opportunity to make a presentation to the council. Benke understands the staff and City Manager's decision was made after consideration of all materials submitted and after consulta- tion with the relocation consultant and LeFevere and the only in- formation not available prior to that decision was the document from Gunn dated January 26, 1988, which council received this evening. Gunn reviewed the history of the relocation case and the subse- quent appeal. Regarding the $21,000, Williams stated Jack Bagley, relocation consultant, reversed that oplnlon and recommended a lesser amount at a more recent time; Gunn indicated Bagley did reverse his original opinion. I LeFevere stated a total remalnlng claim of about $250 million has not been explained tonight; the price differential dispute is the principal area of contention with respect to the housing replace- ment payment. Under the regulations, the replacement payments are made up of price differential, mortgage differential, and inciden- tal expenses; the mortgage differential and incidental expenses have been agreed upon. LeFevere stated Gunn did not point out that the regulations provide the maximum payment for housing re- placement of $15,000 unless the city council makes the determina- Page 12 R-132 Ark Housing First Reading Report 88-35 Amendment to Development Agreement (Svee) Report 88-36 Resolution 88-14 Hearing: A. Thomas Oswalt Relocation Claim